Anti-money laundering system

bovrilnotmarmite

We are currently trying to buy a house despite the fact out solicitor uses the Infotrack eCos system which requires an app on a smartphone. My first comment is use a different solicitor because the Infotrack eCos is so badly designed, buggy and unreliable. It also discriminates against elderly and less techno aware and drives those with techno experience mad! 

My experience is that software so badly designed and implemented is easy to breach. Look at Jaguar Land Rover who still cannot get into their system. 

The other weakness of such a centralised system is that it is a hackers dream since it requires your up to date bank account details , birth certificates, marriage certificates, passport, driving licence and pension fund details - perfect for identity fraud e.g. a fraudster could impersonate you, take your house, money and pension fund and also sell your car and clone it and take out loans and startup companies using your name and credit record!
Who thought of having an online anti money laundering system with centralised collection of data in private hands?
If ever there was a system that needs rethinking it is the anti money laundering system.

theartfullodger

Did you have a question please??

Who chose this esteemed solicitor for you and checked how they would work??

If so unhappy with your solicitors systems did you then consider engaging a different solicitor to handle matter, please?

born_again

bovrilnotmarmite said:

We are currently trying to buy a house despite the fact out solicitor uses the Infotrack eCos system which requires an app on a smartphone. My first comment is use a different solicitor because the Infotrack eCos is so badly designed, buggy and unreliable. It also discriminates against elderly and less techno aware and drives those with techno experience mad! 

My experience is that software so badly designed and implemented is easy to breach. Look at Jaguar Land Rover who still cannot get into their system. 

The other weakness of such a centralised system is that it is a hackers dream since it requires your up to date bank account details , birth certificates, marriage certificates, passport, driving licence and pension fund details - perfect for identity fraud e.g. a fraudster could impersonate you, take your house, money and pension fund and also sell your car and clone it and take out loans and startup companies using your name and credit record!
Who thought of having an online anti money laundering system with centralised collection of data in private hands?
If ever there was a system that needs rethinking it is the anti money laundering system.

What makes you think that the software is not safe?

There are far more software systems that are safe than the few that got hacked, & most of the hacks are due to human error or a 3rd party breech.

Flugelhorn

I think our solicitor used this for ID and address verification all we had were our passports and a couple of letters - nothing financial

singhini

Any solicitor (whether digital or paper-based) has to collect the same sensitive documents as part of anti-money-laundering rules. The risk of identity theft doesn’t suddenly appear because a system is online; people can have their identity stolen through lost post, stolen laptops/phones, hacked emails, or even documents left in a car.

The solicitor isn’t the only one using systems like this either, it’s pretty standard now across the industry, and thousands of people use them safely every day.

If your phone or laptop were ever stolen, the same kind of identity fraud you’re worried about would still be possible.

EssexHebridean

An awful lot of the professional indemnity insurers are now demanding that the online systems be used for the AML checks - so the solicitors may well not have a choice either about doing it or about who they use. You can of course decline to use the system, but they may then have no option but to decline to act for you. 

Chief_of_Staffy

The software on these apps is indeed rubbish, you only have to read the reviews of the various providers, and the information they request far more extensive than necessary. On my recent purchase the solicitor sent out a default email including a PDF detailing how their app worked, everything from taking a video of your own head performing pre-specified actions like a performing monkey to requiring your bank account details so it could connect and check your funds (let's not even speculate why anybody would have a few hundred £K sitting in their current account). I told them I wouldn't be using their app and hey presto, my driving licence and two bills proved sufficient. Or to put it another way, the app is nothing more than a personal data grab and a significant security risk.

EssexHebridean

Sounds like your solicitor was just trying it on in that case Chief of Staffy - however, increasingly as I mentioned previously Indemnity Insurers are demanding that third party providers are used for AML checks, and had this been the case with the firm you instructed, they wouldn’t have been able to continue to act for you without the process being followed. It’s not really very helpful or accurate to give the impression that your experience is likely to be typical.

Chief_of_Staffy

EssexHebridean said:

Sounds like your solicitor was just trying it on in that case Chief of Staffy - however, increasingly as I mentioned previously Indemnity Insurers are demanding that third party providers are used for AML checks, and had this been the case with the firm you instructed, they wouldn’t have been able to continue to act for you without the process being followed. It’s not really very helpful or accurate to give the impression that your experience is likely to be typical.

They weren't trying it on in that sense; they used by default an app by a third party provider, and sent me the provider's PDF instructions up-front. They would have preferred me to use the app, but had no issue when I refused, because, as they are legal professionals, they are perfectly capable of validating my funds.

I did some brief research and found not a single instance of indemnity insurers 'demanding' that solicitors use apps for all AML checks. All I found were references to 'encouragement' and 'preferred protocol', sometimes resulting in preferable terms.

And for certain, if people didn't repeatedly hand over the entirety of their most private data when there is no need whatsoever to do so, there would be no third party apps in the first place.

Bigphil1474

OP, we didn't use the solicitors app when we purchased our property, as my OH doesn't like apps. The solicitors managed to do the AML checks using email and physical documents. The whole sale and purchase process was achieved without an app for us.

EssexHebridean

Chief_of_Staffy said:

EssexHebridean said:

Sounds like your solicitor was just trying it on in that case Chief of Staffy - however, increasingly as I mentioned previously Indemnity Insurers are demanding that third party providers are used for AML checks, and had this been the case with the firm you instructed, they wouldn’t have been able to continue to act for you without the process being followed. It’s not really very helpful or accurate to give the impression that your experience is likely to be typical.

They weren't trying it on in that sense; they used by default an app by a third party provider, and sent me the provider's PDF instructions up-front. They would have preferred me to use the app, but had no issue when I refused, because, as they are legal professionals, they are perfectly capable of validating my funds.

I did some brief research and found not a single instance of indemnity insurers 'demanding' that solicitors use apps for all AML checks. All I found were references to 'encouragement' and 'preferred protocol', sometimes resulting in preferable terms.

And for certain, if people didn't repeatedly hand over the entirety of their most private data when there is no need whatsoever to do so, there would be no third party apps in the first place.

The insurers for the firm I work for DO insist on it - so it's definitely out there as a thing.